February 24, 2021 | International, C4ISR, Security
Army switches up cyber leadership
Two top Army officers are swapping roles between Army Cyber Command and the cyber and electronic warfare schoolhouse.
September 18, 2018 | International, Aerospace
Newly retired head of Air Force Materiel Command talks about the org’s future challenges
By: Valerie Insinna
WASHINGTON — Over the course of her 40-year career with the U.S. Air Force, Gen. Ellen Pawlikowski has worn many hats, going from the manager of the service's airborne laser program to its chief buyer of space technology to — finally — the head of Air Force Materiel Command.
Through it all she was a proud and self-described nerd: an avid science and technology proponent happy to talk about anything from trends in military satellites to how the Air Force was tackling the problem of hypoxia.
Pawlikowski officially retired from the Air Force in early September and is now transitioning to a career in the private sector, having already accepted a place on Raytheon's board of directors. She spoke with Defense News on Sept. 10 about some of AFMC's biggest prospective challenges.
As you look at Air Force Materiel Command now, what advice would you give your successor?
The first thing is to just remember — and I know everybody says this — but there are just amazing airmen at AFMC, and you have to really trust them to get the job done. They care so much about what we do that that makes the job easy.
But I think my advice is you have to recognize just how massive the responsibility is. There's really nothing that goes on in the Air Force that Air Force Materiel Command isn't involved with in some way. And I know I did not have an appreciation for that when I first took command. I was obviously very much aware of the technology side of things and the acquisition side of things, but everything from the Civil Engineering Center that's responsible for all of the milcon projects in the Air Force to the services agency which runs things like all of the dining facilities.
It's a huge job with a wide breadth of impact. All of us come into these jobs with our background in one particular area, and that's our area where you have a tendency to migrate to, but you have to recognize that AFMC has such vast responsibilities that you have to really make sure that you don't get yourself involved in one area that you don't have the time to really take on and cover everything that needs to be done.
When I look at where the Air Force is and the future of the Air Force, there's just tremendous opportunities for AFMC to be helping the Air Force, and in many cases leading the Air Force in these transformations that we're trying to do. The whole focus on multidomain for Air Force, for example: AFMC has to play a critical role in that as we cut across all of the different aspects of what the Air Force does.
The drive to promote and encourage more innovation and what I consider creativity among our airmen — that is something that AFMC has got to help to facilitate. Because there is such opportunities to make sure that we're successful in doing that, but also doing no harm.
What role do you see AFMC having in multidomain?
I think the place that really hits the most is in the Life Cycle Management Center. The Life Cycle Management Center is really structured to be aligned under the program executive officers, and the program executive officers are all aligned by platforms. We've got fighter, bomber, mobility, tanker. So within the Life Cycle Management Center, those things don't come together until you're above the PEO.
So the challenge and opportunity for the Life Cycle Management Center is to be able to still deliver on all those individual products, but [also] to be able to provide the connectivity between those different programs so that we get the interoperability, the connectiveness between the different platforms while they are in development, not after it happens and then we try to figure out how we're going to put them together.
But we have neither really thought about and structured ourselves to do it that way. We've always been structured as the platform as the center of attention. So I think there is a huge opportunity for the Life Cycle Management Center to be the key facilitator for establishing that connectivity, but that's going to take a lot of work, and to a degree some cultural change — and maybe even some change in the way the Air Force programs and budgets [its] dollars.
What specifically could the Life Cycle Management Center do to become that connective tissue between programs?
They're going to have to be the ones that — using, maybe some oldspeak — establish the standards, establish the interfaces, establish the architecture, establish the data structure that is going to enable us to connect things. They have to, to a degree, be the Microsoft and the Apple when it comes to things being able to just connect and work.
The Air Force recently started doing some of the depot maintenance work on its legacy E-8C JSTARS fleet after a couple of problems with the Northrop Grumman depot, which has been struggling with quality control issues. How is the work currently divided?
Right now we're in the crawl phase when it comes to the organic side of things. We have inducted, as you know, one airplane down at Warner Robins [Air Force Base]. That happened just before I left. My last day on active duty was the 9th of August, so I haven't had an update on the progress ... but what we're trying to do is to make sure that we have other options other than just the one facility to be able to maintain these aircraft.
Based on the latest defense authorization for 2019, there's a requirement in there that we keep these, so we need to be able to have the capacity to bring them in. And what we've found through the work with Northrop was that, as hard they were trying, we just couldn't seem to get over the hump of being able to consistently deliver them in a timely manner. And we just needed to have some other options. So what we've done at Robins is to bring in one that doesn't require a lot of the major work, but is something we believe that the Robins workforce can do.
We were kind of pleasantly surprised when we first started to look at this, in the fact that — we kind of looked across the workforce to see how much experience we have on JSTARS, and not an insignificant number of our civilian workforce down there whose part-time job is the Air National Guard on the other side of the runway. So we actually have a fair amount of knowledge of the airplane right down there on the Air Force base.
So what I see happening in the future, as the Air Force works through what we're going to do to maintain those planes as we move forward on Air Battle Management, is going to be probably a split between the two. I don't think you're ever going to see the Air Force completely — well, never say never — but I would be surprised if, in the near future, that the Air Force would completely walk away from the Northrop facility because there is tooling and things like that that the Air Force just doesn't have, at least right now, at Robins.
You recently said in another interview that the light-attack aircraft program of record could be as small as 20 planes. Could you explain why the Air Force is considering such a small buy?
I would see a model there where we would buy 20 or so per year, and then when they got to the point where they were not sustainable anymore — just like your telephone or microwave (who gets a microwave repaired these days?) — we would not invest in a huge organic [maintenance] capability. I don't want to be in the position with light attack that I am with JSTARS.
And so what my point was is that we wouldn't buy massive numbers of these in a big chunk. We would buy them on a regular basis and then when they became unsupportable because of their age, we wouldn't try to maintain them. We would either sell them or put them in the boneyard — probably sell them since there will probably be a good market for them. But that was my point. The number of 20, when I was talking about it, had more to do with how many we might buy in a given year as opposed to the total number.
The discussion is still out there as to how many light-attack versus high-performance aircraft [you need] because there's only so much money, right? The money we spend on light attack may buy more airplanes, but you have to look at capability and what capability we need. So how many we totally actually buy.
I leave that up to folks like [Air Force Chief of Staff] Gen. [Dave] Goldfein and [Air Combat Command head] Gen. [Mike] Holmes, who are the ones who need to make that assessment of what airplanes they need to perform the mission. My point only was that we shouldn't go out and buy 300 of these in one year and then spend 25, 30 years trying to maintain old airplanes.
The Air Force recently has been using 3D printing to solve a lot of problems it's been having with spare parts for older airframes, like printing a toilet seat cover for the C-5 Galaxy, which would have taken more than $10,000 to otherwise replicate. But are there still barriers to using 3D printing for certain applications where you think it would be useful?
I do believe that you will see more and more 3D printing done, particularly for some of these older airplanes, as we have to figure out how to reverse engineer parts in order to keep them flying. The challenges that we've found as we've gone forward on this is, first of all, we have to make sure that we don't get wrapped up in what I call the hype of 3D printing. 3D printing can be a tremendous tool, but it's not for everything.
Certain materials are harder to 3D print than others, and so we're going to need some more science to figure out how to 3D print certain kinds of metals, but what I think we have found and the tremendous work that both the Air Force Research Lab and the Life Cycle Management Center have been doing is, first, the Air Force Research Lab is making sure that we understand the science behind it.
Because in 3D printing in some cases you're using these powders that are created from metals. And those powders have certain characteristics. And it's just like when we order a part, we have to make sure we know how to order the materials for 3D printing and, if you will, the specs, the standards for 3D printing that will enable us to consistently get the same thing.
So there's a lot of hard work that needs to be done to make 3D printing something that we do on a daily basis. And that's what Air Force Materiel Command has focused on.
So what's next for you? I see you've accepted a place on Raytheon's board of directors.
My objective is to first and foremost to be able to spend more time with my family, which has been a challenge for me over the years, as these jobs are not easy. As my dad used to say: “You have a 24/7 job.” I don't know if he realized how true that is, especially as you get more senior in rank.
I plan to probably get involved in a couple other boards and do some advising and consulting. I still consider myself part of what I call the American Geek Squad. I'm a member of the National Academy of Engineering. So I will hopefully get an opportunity to continue to contribute in different forms where I can advise as opposed to the person that's doing everything.
On the same subject
-
-
March 29, 2019 | International, Other Defence
DARPA: Designing Chips for Real Time Machine Learning
The current generation of machine learning (ML) systems would not have been possible without significant computing advances made over the past few decades. The development of the graphics-processing unit (GPU) was critical to the advancement of ML as it provided new levels of compute power needed for ML systems to process and train on large data sets. As the field of artificial intelligence looks towards advancing beyond today's ML capabilities, pushing into the realms of “learning” in real-time, new levels of computing are required. Highly specialized Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs) show promise in meeting the physical size, weight, and power (SWaP) requirements of advanced ML applications, such as autonomous systems and 5G. However, the high cost of design and implementation has made the development of ML-specific ASICs impractical for all but the highest volume applications. “A critical challenge in computing is the creation of processors that can proactively interpret and learn from data in real-time, apply previous knowledge to solve unfamiliar problems, and operate with the energy efficiency of the human brain,” said Andreas Olofsson, a program manager in DARPA's Microsystems Technology Office (MTO). “Competing challenges of low-SWaP, low-latency, and adaptability require the development of novel algorithms and circuits specifically for real-time machine learning. What's needed is the rapid development of energy efficient hardware and ML architectures that can learn from a continuous stream of new data in real time.” DARPA's Real Time Machine Learning (RTML) program seeks to reduce the design costs associated with developing ASICs tailored for emerging ML applications by developing a means of automatically generating novel chip designs based on ML frameworks. The goal of the RTML program is to create a compiler – or software platform – that can ingest ML frameworks like TensorFlow and Pytorch and, based on the objectives of the specific ML algorithms or systems, generate hardware design configurations and standard Verilog code optimized for the specific need. Throughout the lifetime of the program, RTML will explore the compiler's capabilities across two critical, high-bandwidth application areas: 5G networks and image processing. “Machine learning experts are proficient in developing algorithms but have little to no knowledge of chip design. Conversely, chip designers are not equipped with the expertise needed to inform the design of ML-specific ASICs. RTML seeks to merge these unique areas of expertise, making the process of designing ultra-specialized ASICs more efficient and cost-effective,” said Olofsson. Based on the application space's anticipated agility and efficiency, the RTML compiler provides an ideal platform for prototyping and testing fundamental ML research ideas that require novel chip designs. As such, DARPA plans to collaborate with the National Science Foundation (NSF) on this effort. NSF is pursuing its own Real Time Machine Learning program focused on developing novel ML paradigms and architectures that can support real-time inference and rapid learning. After the first phase of the DARPA RTML program, the agency plans to make its compiler available to NSF researchers to provide a platform for evaluating their proposed ML algorithms and architectures. During the second phase of the program, DARPA researchers will have an opportunity to evaluate the compiler's performance and capabilities using the results generated by NSF. The overall expectation of the DARPA-NSF partnership is to lay the foundation for next-generation co-design of RTML algorithms and hardware. “We are excited to work with DARPA to fund research teams to address the emerging challenges for real-time learning, prediction, and automated decision-making,” said Jim Kurose, NSF's head for Computer and Information Science and Engineering. “This collaboration is in alignment with the American AI Initiative and is critically important to maintaining American leadership in technology and innovation. It will contribute to advances for sustainable energy and water systems, healthcare logistics and delivery, and advanced manufacturing.” RTML is part of the second phase of DARPA's Electronics Resurgence Initiative (ERI) – a five-year, upwards of $1.5 billion investment in the future of domestic, U.S. government, and defense electronics systems. As a part of ERI Phase II, DARPA is supporting domestic manufacturing options and enabling the development of differentiated capabilities for diverse needs. RTML is helping to fulfill this mission by creating a means of expeditiously and cost-effectively generating novel chip designs to support emerging ML applications. Interested proposers will have an opportunity to learn more about the RTML program during a Proposers Day, which will be held at 675 North Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203 on Tuesday April 2, 2019 from 09:00 am – 03:00 pm EDT. Additional information about the event and registration are found here: https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=29e4d24ce31d2bf276a2162fae3d11cd&tab=core&_cview=0 Additional details on the RTML program are in the Broad Agency Announcement, published to fbo.gov: https://www.fbo.gov/index.php?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=a32e37cfad63edcba7cfd5d997422d93&tab=core&_cview=0 https://www.darpa.mil/news-events/2019-03-21
-
September 20, 2018 | International, Naval, C4ISR
NGEN-R: What is the Navy thinking?
By: Amber Corrin The Navy released a long-awaited final request for proposals Sept. 18 for the re-compete of its Next Generation Enterprise Network contract. But it's part one of two, covering only the hardware side of things as the service looks to overhaul its Navy-Marine Corps Intranet. According to analysts at Deltek, each piece of the NGEN-R request is valued at roughly $250 million over a three-year period, per estimates from Space and Naval Warfare Systems Command. That's significantly lower than NGEN's original $3.5 billion price tag. Specifically, the RFP seeks hardware devices for use on the Department of Defense's classified and unclassified networks, including desktops, laptops, two-in-one detachable devices, tablets, ultra-small desktop computers, as well as thin- or zero-client devices. A single device could serve multiple users and associated accounts, according to the RFP. But for the roughly 400,000 devices NGEN-R looks to replace, the service in particular is looking at an end-user hardware-as-a-service arrangement. “It's breaking out the services that are being provided in a way that allows us to gain most effective advantage of how industry does business today,” Capt. Don Harder, deputy program executive officer for Navy enterprise information systems, told Federal Times in a recent interview. “The end user of hardware and devices as its own separate contract, there are those suppliers out there that that's what they specialize in. By breaking that out into its own contractual component within the NGEN-R construct ... we believe will allow us to get more effective advantage to pricing on those components.” The language in the RFP solidifies Harder's thoughts as part of the statement of work. “In acquiring EUHWaaS, the Government is only acquiring the service of using an EUHW device. This is not a purchase, and titles for all EUHWaaS devices remain with the Contractor,” the RFP states. “EUHWaaS includes the provisioning, storage of spares, configuration, testing, integration, installation, operation, maintenance, [end-of-life] disposal of NIPRNet and SIPRNet EUHW, and internal storage device removal and destruction requirements.” Bids for the hardware piece of NGEN-R are due Nov. 19. The second part of the NGEN-R RFP, service management integration and transport or SMIT, is expected in the next 30 days, according to a Navy spokesman. SMIT will cover much of NMCI's backbone and functionality, including services ranging from help desk to productivity suites to network defense — and how they're technically provided. Splitting NGEN-R into two separate contracts was an intentional move designed, at least in part, to give the Navy greater flexibility in the capabilities available to users, and the options for buying them, as technology evolves. “We are modifying how the services are broken out in a way that it allows us to sever some of those services as new mechanisms [and] provide [them as they are] brought into play or brought to our attention,” Harder said, using cloud capabilities as an example. “We may allow a mechanism to pull some of those into either a hybrid cloud or a cloud solution in the future. If so, it may go on a separate contractual vehicle at which point in time we would sever those services away from the SMIT vehicle. So, we're looking at how we take those services and how we manage them contractually, which would allow us, again additional flexibility later on down the road.” Harder said that throughout the development of NGEN-R, he's been eyeing not just the Navy, but also the broader government to benefit from the new approach. “We're building in that flexibility that allows the government the ability in the future even to find components of services that can be done in a more effective or efficient way [and] either sever them or modify them separately as opposed to having to break apart the entire contract to do something,” he said. The hardware piece of NGEN-R was released less than two weeks after Navy officials announced a one-year, $787 million extension to the incumbent provider, Perspecta. Harder declined to put a dollar figure on the NGEN-R contract, as did other Navy officials. The RFP comes after several delays — officials previously had said the contract would be up for bidding this summer. According to Harder, prior to release the RFP had to be approved by leadership at the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Navy for research, development and acquisition, as well as the Office of the Secretary of Defense's Defense Procurement and Acquisition Policy office. Harder said the Navy has taken extra time to shore up “the education piece” — ensuring the contracting process meets leaders' expectations, particularly with the new strategy. And IT modernization also has come into play, with officials from the broader DoD looking to NGEN as a possible model or even contract vehicle for defense networks down the line, he said. “We need to ensure that what we have placed in the contract and how we're going about the contract meets leadership expectations. And because we are doing things in a different way, that's taking a little bit of time,” Harder said. The Navy's approach to running NMCI today is “one of the more cost-effective ways of managing networks. And there is a desire as part of one of the many IT reform efforts [for possible] integration of networks in the future to mimic or, potentially, even ride on our contracts.” https://www.federaltimes.com/acquisition/2018/09/19/ngen-r-what-is-the-navy-thinking